Both I and Calhoun Hall (English) are reflected.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Welcome friend! Consider this your online Steve-and-Adam's room! Traber 611 Online! So kick back, grab your favorite SAGA-esque snack, turn down the lights, and get ready to relive the good old days!
6 comments:
You've a bit more hair and a lot more makup since I saw you last
oh, wait. nevermind.
This may be a strange place to post this, but I thought that I should pirate my own comment stream for a change.
This will probably be most interesting to Dave and the Logemonster, but the rest of you might also find it worth while. It is a piece called "The Spirit of Terrorism" by French Philosopher Jean Baudrillard that was published 11/03/2001 in the French paper Le Monde. He addresses the Sept. 11 attacks in terms of a world power system (globalization) and the relationship between reality, image and event. Very interesting. Somewhat difficult (emotionally) to read, but well worth it:
http://humanities.psydeshow.org/political/baudrillard-eng.htm
But yes, I was wearing a lot of makeup that day.
I read that article through once, very quickly; need to do it again more carefully.
Coye, I'm curious to how you define "power" (in the social sense). That'd be an interesting thing to talk about, i think.
I think that "power" in the way that Boudrillard is using it here comes very close to Foucault's definition of power from _History_of_Sexuality_: "power is not an institution, and not a structure; neither is it a certain strength we are endowed with; it is the name that one attributes to a complex strategical situation in a particular society." Or, as Butler glosses it (in _Excitable_Speech_), "the name that one attributes to this complexity, a name that substitutes for that complexity, a name that renders manageable what might be otherwise too unwieldy or complex." Power is related closely to language; it has a lot to do with identities formed within (or on the margins of) communities, and it is something over which none of us-- not even the most "powerful"-- has sovereign mastery or control. Power wields us far more than we could ever hope to wield power. If, as Butler and Foucault argue, power is what forms us as linguistic subjects, then we can only think about "power" in the conceptual space opened (and limited) by "power" itself. That is to say, power functions largely through hegemony: it sets the standards (possibly _is_ the standard) of what is thinkable, intelligible, speakable. So, rather than "how do I define power", the question might be "how does power allow itself to be thought?"
Post a Comment